Re: Some of the All-Time greats averages in 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dunksby

Why per 100? Why not 120 or 130? Per 100 obviously will favor modern day basketball players' numbers.

I just picked 100 because i am more used to seeing that many possessions i guess... Wouldnt matter how many possessions i would choose... It doesnt favor anybody because a possession is a possession and all are calculated after the same possessions, no matter how little or how many possessions i would have used here you will get the same result but in different numbers.... I mean the player that averaged best numbers per. possession / minute will average the best numbers per. possession / minute no matter how many possessions/minutes we are going after..........

Re: Some of the All-Time greats averages in 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.

Show the hard evidence for possessions.

Since steals & turnovers weren't recorded, you really do have to show hard evidence.

Explain why you selected 100 and 40 mpg (i.e., this idea is from the guys at basketball reference from ca. 10 year ago and was used by several people as a way to belittle Chamberlain's feats in favor of Jordan.... Nobody could possibly play 48mpg, therefore Chamberlain will have to get his numbers lowered )

It's a pretty plaything but how does this show the stamina required to keep the same level of activity for 48 minutes that a guy has for 35 or 40?

Re: Some of the All-Time greats averages in 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.

So basically LeBron, Jordan, and Shaq are the three best peak players ever according to these numbers? Yeah that's a real shock lol.

I'd like to see LeBron, Jordan, and Shaq's averages based on the same amount of possessions of Wilt and Oscar. I'd venture to guess roughly LeBron would be somewhere around 48/13/13, Jordan would be 53/10/9, and Shaq would be 48/30.

Re: Some of the All-Time greats averages in 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chips93

where did op get numbers for pace for wilt and oscars teams?

For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 to 156 and to a whooping 165 poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150.... its an approximate, but to be super accurate lets just say Wilt/Oscar/Russell played in a era with many more possessions a game....

Re: Some of the All-Time greats averages in 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauk

I just picked 100 because i am more used to seeing that many possessions i guess... Wouldnt matter how many possessions i would choose... It doesnt favor anybody because a possession is a possession and all are calculated after the same possessions, no matter how little or how many possessions i would have used here you will get the same result but in different numbers.... I mean the player that averaged best numbers per. possession / minute will average the best numbers per. possession / minute no matter how many possessions/minutes we are going after..........

I may be crazy, but wouldn't it require you to define a possession first? Your statement would be true once a possession is defined.

Edit: In case that is vague, what I mean is you'd have to define per possession production for a player.

Re: Some of the All-Time greats averages in 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.

Please show the exact method you're using to estimate the pace for those earlier teams.

Also, for the first few players I checked, you're numbers are wrong. You've inflated the stats a bit for certain players and deflated them a bit for others, so please show the exact calculation for each player.

Re: Some of the All-Time greats averages in 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.

1. Not buying the 150 possessions thing about the 60's, sorry. Especially 1966. Generally, look at the differences in the numbers of shots taken, FT's taken, etc. Compare 1966 to 1972. How the heck did you get to a difference of 30 possessions?

2. If it was anywhere near accurate to take a league with supposedly 150 possessions and project stats in a league of 100 or vice-versa without accounting for severe changes in efficiency (and therefore, other stats linked with it, like rebounds and assists), modern teams would be foolish NOT to try and get 150 possessions themselves nowadays.

3. Linked with #2. Why don't you also post the adjusted numbers for their whole teams, so that we really see who's more impactful statistically for his team? Also, how about posting their FGAs?

4. Linked with #3. Since you are a PER fan, if Wilt's stats are "mortal", how come he still has the most impressive individual season PERs of all time, which comes AFTER accounting for possessions? Why does Wilt's PER blow Magic's out of the water if Magic supposedly almost matches Wilt's scoring (LOL!), probably exceeds his efficiency (due to FT's) and Magic's assists advantage is wider than Wilt's rebounding advantage? Something doesn't add up here...